This is an archive of past discussions with User:Willking1979. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Whenever you see something like that, instantly revert with a "BenH style edits" edit summary, slap a set of warnings on his talk page, and report it to AIV. That is what I would do. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 13, 2009 @ 17:59
If you like to take it to Checkuser, go right ahead. I would take some of the other confirmed socks with you so they have something to check with also. Let me know if you need help. Good catch :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 13, 2009 @ 18:41
To be honest with you, I am surprised there weren't more CUs on him. BenH is one of the worst vandals on here. Right up there with Gwarp and Dingbat2007. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 13, 2009 @ 19:06
I added a link to the Category of his sockpuppets to the CU, in case they want to search those as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 13, 2009 @ 19:10
I received inside information that the retransmission dispute has been resolved. I had to take the tag off the articles as the articles themselves were pulled. Just thought you wanted to know. Nicholasm79 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What was unconstructive about my edit? I was trying to help people avoid bad music. That is a valid and laudable task in my opinion.69.134.101.76 (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my comment was more about the policy than about the article. Going out of your way to keep people from getting angry just seems silly to me.69.134.101.76 (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, too bad then. This so called "Neutrality", seems to make it impossible to be completely truthful and honest with the articles, which would seem to me, to be more important than idealism.69.134.101.76 (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there are message boards and chat rooms elsewhere for which you can discuss how good or bad Nickelback is. There are no such boards here on Wikipedia. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I oversteped a line by reverting the anon's last message. Which essentially said he was going to continue vandalizing. I warned him about that and will watch him, but I thought it was time to step in so you didn't have to keep answering the same post over and over. Nice work though in keeping your cool, I would have snapped after the 3rd or 4th post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 19, 2009 @ 02:40
You've done the right thing in putting a halt to the drama, NH. While I have no problem discussing neutrality, I was getting tired of the user's ignorance of the central principles of Wikipedia. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem :) Glad I could help. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 19, 2009 @ 02:57
Actually, you completely misread my last post NH. I did not say that at all, I was simply giving the reason for the edit mentioned above. In fact, I have no plans to make any more edits, which is what I was trying to say with my closing of "So long, and thanks for all of the fish!" So, with that said -- So long, and thanks for all of the fish!69.134.101.76 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I got it right. Allow me to quote you, "Ahh, but it's more fun to do it here. If I do it other places, I would be denying people the satisfaction of reverting my edits and making themselves feel good about it." Saying you don't want to "deny people the satisfaction of reverting" your edits, is essentially saying you will continue to vandalize. Ain't happening, buckwheat. You have been warned and you know the consequences. If you are leaving, leave....but if you stay, follow the rules. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 19, 2009 @ 03:11
The IP added a second WPKY project banner to the talk page, which is unnecessary, so I removed it. I also set the "class" parameter to stub, while leaving "importance" unassessed. I think it's clear to anyone who doesn't have an agenda that "High" is too high an importance for this organization. "Mid" maybe, and probably "low" would be more accurate. However, to avoid a conflict with this IP, I'll be content to leave its importance unassessed, as literally hundreds of other articles in the project are. This determination is a little subjective, so I usually don't try to make it unless I'm reasonably sure about it.
Per the general importance criteria, assessments are only supposed to be done by WikiProject members, but the wiki software doesn't prohibit IPs (or anyone else) from changing it. Also, these criteria say that importance is impacted by "external interest", as measured by several factors. I somehow doubt KFTC generates the same amount of "external interest" as other High importance articles like say, Billy Ray Cyrus or Hatfield-McCoy feud.
Additionally, the project's own criteria for High importance articles is "Topics that are very notable within Kentucky, and well-known outside of it, and can be reasonably expected to be included in any print encyclopedia." I hardly think KFTC meets those criteria.
I've added the article to my watchlist so I can monitor things if they escalate, but in fairness, I'm leaving tonight for a business trip and will have pretty limited access to Wikipedia until Friday afternoon, so don't count on me too heavily in the short term.
Thanks, Acdixon, for the advice. There are indeed flaws in the article that need to be addressed like how the coal industry and business in general view KFTC and similar groups. But I'll monitor the article and if the IPer tries to change the WikiProject assessment, I will revert it. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Two issues here. First, no, I don't think PageOneKentucky qualifies as a reliable source. By virtue of being a blog, I'd say there needs to be definitive evidence that it is published by an expert or media outlet. I don't see such evidence here. I suspect the fact could be sourced to a more reliable source anyway.
The second issue is that the fact sourced to PageOne is trivia. Does anyone really think that this will be part of any serious biography of Mongiardo in any published source? I'd say you're good to go if you want to remove it. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)02:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Acdixon. I just removed the statement...Looks like the IPer that added the trivia needs to read WP:NOT. Willking1979 (talk)
The author blanked it and I tagged it for speedy around the time you reverted the blanking. I undone my edit, thinking I goofed. My apologies. Willking1979 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 05:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Sock accusation
I don't have any idea what the guy's problem is. His attacks are certainly uncalled for. I think it's appropriate to remove the personal attack from his page if you wish--I didn't check the rules. If he starts in again, I'll drop a note at WP:WQA. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave it as is for the time being. Both you and Baseball Bugs have responded and hopefully that should deter him from filing a false sockpuppetry case. If he starts his lies again, I will delete the whole section. Willking1979 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: WLEX Edits
They were fishy to me so I reverted them. The information wasn't really necessary to begin with and with the user being out of Indiana, my "something ain't right detector" was going off. Another good catch. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 27, 2009 @ 04:26
Nah, that is an IP user who is seriously obsessed with the digital transition. He was blocked for a month for just this and is back at it. I would revert on spot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 22:50
I am trying to get the anon user blocked but User:Either way (formerly "Metros") is letting his "issues" (whatever they may be) with me cloud his judgement and he is dragging his feet. I have let the previous admin who blocked the user know what is going on. I would keep an eye out because the anon user is redoing what we are reverting. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:54
If you wish to email an that admin, please by all means. It seems like Metros (I call him Metros, not Either way) is actually defending him. A couple dozen warnings with new warnings today, a couple blocks and and hundreds of reverts....this isn't someone who is working in the projects best interests. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:59
Either way is not letting his "issues" with Orangemonster2k1, Flatsky, Alostnickel, Tehunknown Neutralhomer cloud his judgment but is acting with good faith because he doesn't see how it's pure vandalism. The infobox info isn't a standard according to the WikiProject. None of his other edits scream "vandalism!!" to me. If you seek wider input, take it to ANI rather than sending emails to other admins. either way (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Either way is resorted to personal attacks and dregging up all crap in the third person...nice, haven't seen that before. William, you are doing just fine. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 00:35
You're Welcome William :) I know I did some bad stuff like socking a couple years ago. I paid the price for it, came back as a good standing member (after being on probation for awhile) and am now off probation. It is not something I am proud of and something I shouldn't have done....which is why I don't talk about it, but it is public record. Dregging up the past like that is very bad form but something people do as a "come back", I guess. Oh well, I don't let it get to me anymore. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 00:48
It's just a little hypocritical to call someone by their former user handle but not be okay with yourself being called by former name(s). either way (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Metros, stop trying to start fights and dishing out veiled personal attacks by dregging up the past. It ain't gonna work. If you want to talk about this like civilized human beings on your talk page, we can do that, otherwise act like an admin, take the highroad and leave me alone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 00:48
I couldn't help noticing this?! Changing memoirs to Autobiography is neither vandalism, nor a smear. Please show greater caution in your reverting edits. cygnis insignis15:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
While some of the IPer's edits on that article were disruptive and had POV issues...upon further examination, I admit I may have jumped the gun on that specific edit. I'll be careful as a Huggler. Willking1979 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
reverting
Hi. Cheers for your revert of this test edit, but you overlooked a significant act of vandalism just prior to this. A referenced section was removed in its entirety. Regards, cygnis insignis15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Ta for the reply, its something to look out for. Automated editing has its pitfalls, and can invariably be used to advantage by vandalisers. Cheers, cygnis insignis15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know exactly how to contact other users, so am making my best effort here. You recently undid an edit I did on the SCD page, asking me to leave discussion before making such edits. I'm frustrated because I've done the vast majority of the work on keeping that article clean, accurate and aligned with Wikipedia guidelines and also because the approach to external links is proving arbitrary with the permitted links as much in violation of W guidelines as any of the deleted ones were. (I would propose that it's difficult to find any website that does not conflict with at least one of W's extensive links policies. That doesn't concern me, but an arbitrary approach to the editing of them does.) After watching several being inappropriately (as compared to those left up) deleted time and again, I finally pulled them all and left a discussion note. I don't think any of my activity to date, as noted above, constitutes vandalism. Hoping you will get back to me either here or there. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.167.33 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I was using Huggle, which is software that fights vandalism. I was not aware about the controversy regarding the links until I noticed the link removal and the discussion on the talk page. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience. Sincerely, Willking1979 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, thanks Willking. I am just learning all this stuff (edit, Huggle, talk pages, etc). Thanks for getting back to me. I will keep trying to keep my activity a-okay, too, while I get the hang of "all things Wiki". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.167.33 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I added this note above while you were replying; moving it down here for you to catch: At this point, in terms of Huggle, editing, etc, how do I deal with the external links on that page without being cited for vandalism, etc? What I'm aiming for is for that page to have links representing a variety of perspectives and resources (ie. the two that are being left up, plus the four or five that were up until very recently, deleted by someone other than myself).Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.167.33 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
If you are trying to add links offering different perspectives, I would suggest that you would provide a summary of what the link represents (whether a link is in favor or against something). The MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia has a blacklist of known spam sites. Bots are known to revert spam links throughout Wikipedia. For more on the external link policy, go to Wikipedia:External links. I hope this helps you. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Please watch your revisions. I was incredibly frustrated with the revisions and vandalism tags on my talk page as I made good faith edits to move the article Bandit to a disambiguation page, with a separate article for the television series, as had been discussed in the article's discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stadler981 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
for reverting the attack on my user page. Amazingly, with all the vandalism reversions I do and warnings I issue, that was the first time I had been targeted. Wonder whose sockpuppet it was . . . Anyway, thanks for fixing it so quickly. Rivertorch (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Absolutely not. First, judging from the URL, the citation comes from a blog, which is not a reliable source. As a result, this could be considered a BLP violation. Also, it seems to me to fit the definition of a WP:COATRACK. Unless there is a clear, well-documented connection between this resignation and some meaningful event in the history of the town, I'd say it's just someone with an agenda. Oh, and the username seems to suggest a WP:COI. Feel free to use any or all of those reasons as justification for your revert! :) Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)13:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this follow-up, even though your talk page is on my watchlist. I still see this as a WP:COATRACK and is borderline WP:UNDUE. If the voters of the town still elected him mayor, the majority must not have thought this was a big deal. The real test, IMO, is does it have any meaningful impact on the town itself? My guess is a resounding "no". Or, put another way, if this mayoral election had taken place in 1809 instead of 2009, would it still be part of the article? Exceedingly doubtful. This user has made no other edits, and looks to me like an WP:SPA. An outright accusation of that would probably run afoul of WP:AGF, or at least WP:BITE, but that's how I see it. I'd recommend bringing the issue to the article's talk page, then reverting again with a note about the talk page discussion in the edit summary. If you are able to engage the user in some dialog, but still can't get a resolution, you might have to find some outside assistance. Not sure where the best outlet for that is, but let's cross that bridge if we come to it. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)17:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you live in Whitesburg, KY perhaps you can answer this question. I have WNVA-FM listed as being able to be heard clearly (a "city grade signal" with no static) in Whitesburg. Would you mind giving 106.3FM a listen at your earliest convenience and let me know, please? It would be much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 19, 2009 @ 07:59
Actually I live in Isom, which is 9 miles NW of Whitesburg. I used to have a radio with a long rod antenna that can pick up WNVA with some static here in Isom. But with a different radio with a smaller rod antenna and with possible interference from my cable modem, I cannot pick up WNVA like I used to. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that answered my question perfectly :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 19, 2009 @ 17:22
Image copyright problem with File:Juneandalice.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Juneandalice.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your recent support in the Oversight election, in which I was successful. I have begun to get my feet wet there and will do everything possible to reflect the community's trust in me. Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
